Court Report: 2020 @ A London Crown Court
Sometimes hearings will be open to the public but will be subject to reporting restrictions. In the interests of justice an order can be made by the court preventing naming of the victim. Given the nature of the crime such an order was granted here.
The facts:
Counts one and two: Disclosing private sexual images without consent (“revenge pornography”), contrary to section 33 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
In February 2019 the victim a Ms BA receives a message on WhatsApp from the defendant her ex-partner, 28-year-old Mr TA. She has recently suffered a bereavement and is shocked to receive a message saying that she should have died instead. “Karma is a bitch and some people deserve to suffer” continues the message.
She then receives a weblink to an adult video hosting website (Count 1) – the defendant has posted an intimate video of a consensual act the two had previously shared which had been recorded on his phone. It had been viewed some 106 times before deletion.
Later, the victim’s brother Mr BB is sent a 23 second intimate video clip of his sister from a phone number that belongs to the defendant (Count 2). The police request he screenshots the message.
Initially TA refutes all offences and denies uploading. The message screenshot must have been fabricated TA claims during interview.
His computer tells a different story: The tablet has been left signed into the account that had uploaded the video. His iPhone has visited the video some 9 times.
Confronted with the evidence the story changes – suddenly the upload was with consent. He initially pleads not guilty before changing his plea to guilty at a pre-trial-review.
The court hears two victim impact statements from BA and BB. The family is deeply religious, and this has caused huge distress to BA as she’s worried about them finding out.
In considering the sentence the Judge remarks that “at first blush this crime sails past the custody threshold”. After some calculation the court calculates TA has served the equivalent of a 14-month custodial sentence prior to being released on bail.
The court also has to consider the principle of totality ie whether the two offences should be seen as one continuing episode of criminality aggravated by the long period or two distinctly separate crimes.
Ultimately he’s given a sentence of 13 months suspended for 2 years so he walks straight out of court at the end of the hearing. Naturally a restraining order is made and the electronic devices used are ordered to be destroyed despite an ambitious request for them to be returned.
Surprisingly this crime doesn’t warrant inclusion on the Sex Offenders Register although that might change in a coming legal shake up.
As I explained at the beginning an order was made preventing naming of the victim. I’ve gone one step further and chosen not to name the defendant either – the risk that he might be Googled one day and someone could ‘jigsaw’ their way to identifying Ms BA is a risk that is just too great.
As is common there was no one sat on the press bench and I was the only public observer present. It’s unlikely Mr TA will face any public scrutiny for his crimes. You may well hope that in his case karma will be a bitch.
Mouse in the Court 